A P O C R Y P H A : Included in every Holy Bible from the 4th century AD to the 19th Century AD

[Andrew]

This thread is locked for a cool down and will remained locked unless approved by an Administrator.

 

[Romanos]

ADMIN POST

I am going to reopen this thread so long as the discussion that follows the reopening is respectful and fruitful in a positive manner. I know we are all capable of discussing Scripture without resorting to flaming one another. ​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Given that the councils in North Africa at Hippo and Carthage had at least one hundred bishops in attendance, given that their list of canonical scripture has been preserved from the fourth century to today, and given that the council of Rome also confirmed the same list of canonical books as canonical scripture and that around 300 bishops were in attendance it follows that these councils were not - as one contributor suggested - tiny diocesan meetings these councils were regional and significant.

The canons of the councils at Hippo and Carthage were affirmed at the ecumenical council of Florence and once more at the ecumenical council of Trent. And we can add that the manuscript bibles of ancient and middles ages times included the books in the canon lists from Hippo and Carthage which gives us one more line of evidence in favour of the churches' approval of the canon lists from Hippo and Carthage.

We can also add that the printed bibles from Guttenberg's press and many other presses included the books in the canon lists from Hippo and Carthage. This continued for centuries after Guttenberg's bibles were first published.

So we are faced with the current popularity of printed bibles with only sixty-six books in them as a comparatively recent innovation in bible production. This thread proposed one source for this recent trend. Readers may accept the idea that the Bible Societies of Scotland and the British & Foreign Bible society are effectively the prime causes for the reduced size of so many modern printed bibles. The cost advantage too will have played a role.

Protestants may prefer a sixty-six book bible, that is their privilege, others who are not Protestant may also exercise their privilege of choice and select a bible of seventy-three books rather than a sixty-six books bible.

 

[NathanH83]

Given that the councils in North Africa at Hippo and Carthage had at least one hundred bishops in attendance, given that their list of canonical scripture has been preserved from the fourth century to today, and given that the council of Rome also confirmed the same list of canonical books as canonical scripture and that around 300 bishops were in attendance it follows that these councils were not - as one contributor suggested - tiny diocesan meetings these councils were regional and significant.

The canons of the councils at Hippo and Carthage were affirmed at the ecumenical council of Florence and once more at the ecumenical council of Trent. And we can add that the manuscript bibles of ancient and middles ages times included the books in the canon lists from Hippo and Carthage which gives us one more line of evidence in favour of the churches' approval of the canon lists from Hippo and Carthage.

We can also add that the printed bibles from Guttenberg's press and many other presses included the books in the canon lists from Hippo and Carthage. This continued for centuries after Guttenberg's bibles were first published.

So we are faced with the current popularity of printed bibles with only sixty-six books in them as a comparatively recent innovation in bible production. This thread proposed one source for this recent trend. Readers may accept the idea that the Bible Societies of Scotland and the British & Foreign Bible society are effectively the prime causes for the reduced size of so many modern printed bibles. The cost advantage too will have played a role.

Protestants may prefer a sixty-six book bible, that is their privilege, others who are not Protestant may also exercise their privilege of choice and select a bible of seventy-three books rather than a sixty-six books bible.

I think Protestants should accept AT LEAST the 73 book canon, since it’s the correct thing to do.

Forget about the Protestant thing to do, and forget about the Catholic thing to do.

I care about the RIGHT thing to do.
The right thing is to include the “Apocrypha” (though it’s not really Apocrypha since it’s scripture)

 

[Andrew]

Given that the councils in North Africa at Hippo and Carthage had at least one hundred bishops in attendance, given that their list of canonical scripture has been preserved from the fourth century to today, and given that the council of Rome also confirmed the same list of canonical books as canonical scripture and that around 300 bishops were in attendance it follows that these councils were not - as one contributor suggested - tiny diocesan meetings these councils were regional and significant.

The canons of the councils at Hippo and Carthage were affirmed at the ecumenical council of Florence and once more at the ecumenical council of Trent. And we can add that the manuscript bibles of ancient and middles ages times included the books in the canon lists from Hippo and Carthage which gives us one more line of evidence in favour of the churches' approval of the canon lists from Hippo and Carthage.

We can also add that the printed bibles from Guttenberg's press and many other presses included the books in the canon lists from Hippo and Carthage. This continued for centuries after Guttenberg's bibles were first published.

So we are faced with the current popularity of printed bibles with only sixty-six books in them as a comparatively recent innovation in bible production. This thread proposed one source for this recent trend. Readers may accept the idea that the Bible Societies of Scotland and the British & Foreign Bible society are effectively the prime causes for the reduced size of so many modern printed bibles. The cost advantage too will have played a role.

Protestants may prefer a sixty-six book bible, that is their privilege, others who are not Protestant may also exercise their privilege of choice and select a bible of seventy-three books rather than a sixty-six books bible.

I agree in all my respect regarding the right of privilege, however, the convience of choosing is compromised, especially among the lower class.
For instance, today I bought a few groceries at walmart and I checked out the choices of Bibles they carried, all were of the standard non denominational kind, some included study guides, cross-references and notes, maps etc.
Well, you can order a Catholic Bible online, or an EOC bible, or the Apocrypha by itself, tho none of these options are very appealing to the majority of protestants (im sure) they won't be taking these to church that's for certain, and that's fine.. they can be read anywhere, online even, however, unless you know enough about the "Apocrypha" to recognize which of them were accepted by churches, you may end up drifting into gnostic writings unaware because they also are labeled "Apocrypha".
For example, a King James Apocrypha would only contain those of the Old Testament, but online bookstores and websites will often appeal to its buyers with NT Apocrypha.. and thats very discouraging.

There is a great Lutheran Apocrypha study edition you can order online, it holds the traditional Lutheran view and even encourages every Protestant to read and understand and to embrace this collection of books the way Luther intended them to be, that they should be read by every Christian for lessons on Holy and pious living.
It contains commentary by Luther that explains how it can bless the Christian, as well as his references for understanding certain passages in the canonical books, the morals and value to the stories.
It also contains just about everything else under the sun when it comes to Apocrypha history, timelines, whos-who, q and a, king charts, marginal notes... there is so much info in this book that will erase any stigma and prejudice tied to it.
This Lutheran Apocrypha study book was put together by many Lutheran scholars who were each individually assigned to specific portions in accordance to what they excelled in by profession.

 

[Andrew]

I think Protestants should accept AT LEAST the 73 book canon, since it’s the correct thing to do.

Forget about the Protestant thing to do, and forget about the Catholic thing to do.

I care about the RIGHT thing to do.
The right thing is to include the “Apocrypha” (though it’s not really Apocrypha since it’s scripture)

As I stated above, the choice is compromised. Since now the majority of Protestants rely on purchasing bibles from the local super-market, if the "Apocrypha" were included in the standard non denominational bibles we would find about as much uproar as in the times of Reformers for the complete removal of them from the Bible.... which there was absolutely no uproar by protestants to demand lighter bibles.
Thus the argument of canon would hardly even matter since no doctrine from the OT has been established by Christians anyway, Purgatory was supposedly based on more books than just one book, but in any case they were twisted, my copy of the Catholic Catechism does not even reference any scripture, so what difference does that make? Jews have prayed to the dead since forever, its a Holy and Pious THOUGHT to pray to God for His Mercy on your decreased loved one, even Jesus wept!
I dont believe they are being temporarily punished and I find no evidence of such a place in the Bible, but IF there was such a place, praying for the dead is STILL a pious one, we all want to see our loved ones at the ressurection!

If the standard Bibles included the common majority of those considered by the churches as either Apocrypha or Deuterocanon or fully canon, then that is a better measuring rod to use than some bias bible society, and Christians would read them and know them just as they did long ago.

 

[DanielL]

sixty-six

for me 66 is just very suspect. I don't believe God would make a 66 Bible.. I really don't. The real Bible has to be 70 at least.

 

[MoreCoffee]

for me 66 is just very suspect. I don't believe God would make a 66 Bible.. I really don't. The real Bible has to be 70 at least.

73
7 for completeness
3 for the blessed Trinity.

 

[Josiah]

@Josiah @Alibion

"And I'm going to suggest that, hereafter, it not be allowed for any thread's title to be a theory or hearsay or a hunch, etc. stated as if it were fact."

Read the THREAD title! How is THIS hearsay?
V V V V V V V VV V
--------
Jerome's Latin Vulgate 382 [Latin]
(Labeled "Apocrypha" by Jerome, although others before had simply referred to them as Scripture or Ecclesiasticals, the Church would officially declare them Deuterocanon)

1000 years pass...

Wycliffe's Bible 1382 [Middle English] (Deuterocanon)

The Luther Bible 1522 [German]
("Apocrypha")

Coverdale Bible 1535 [Modern English] ("Apocrypha")

The Mathew Bible 1537 [Modern English]
("Apocrypha")

The Great Bible 1539 [English]
("Apocrypha")

Geneva Bible 1560 [English]
("Apocrypha")

The Brest Bible 1563 [Polish]
("Apocrypha")

Bishop's Bible 1568 [English]
("Apocrypha")

Reina Valera Bible 1569 [Spanish]
(Deuterocanon)

The Douay-Rheims Bible 1609 [English]
(Deuterocanon)

King James Version 1611 [English]
("Apocrypha")

The Bible of Kralice 1613 [Czech]
("Apocrypha")

The Illuminated Bible 1846 [English]
("Apocrypha")

Revised King James Version 1885 [English]

----------

Thank you.

As we know, there is - and never has been - any agreement on what is and is not "apocrypha/deuterocanonical" books. Thanks for confirming that but we already know that. And of course why you need to be so mysterious with your "THEM" since there is no one set of "THEM.

Now, how does that prove your claims?

All those Jewish Conspiracy claims...

The Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

All books found in all Bibles are equal....

"The Church" "Christianity" "Christians" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

"Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books (always the same corpus)....

Every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books ....

The American Bible Society is The Authoritative Ruling Body for Protestantism...

Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

I'm (Josiah) THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them"..

I (Josiah) rejects the Bible of Luther (although he has and uses one)...

I (Josiah) am a "neo-Lutheran" who is apathetic toward the movement of the" Protestant Deformation" (Whatever that gobbledygook means)


.

 

[Josiah]

The right thing is to include the “Apocrypha”

@NathanH83


1. Which Apocrypha?


2. There is no law anywhere that restricts printers, publishing houses or bookstores from making available Bibles with ANYTHING THEY WANT in them. The Bible is not typewritten. There are no laws anywhere about what must be included or excluded between the covers of such a tome. If you want a tome with Psalm 151 in it - IT'S AVAILABLE. If you want a tome with 4 Maccabees in it - IT'S AVAILABLE. If you want a tome that only has 27 NT books in it - IT'S AVAILABLE. And if you want to read The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, First Clement, the Letter of Barnabas, the Epistle to the Leodiceans those are all very easily available too. The very fact that you claim you've read some set of books you call "the Apocrypha" proves they are available.


3. My tome (published by the Lutheran Concordia Publishing House) has some 2800 pages between the covers (in 2 volumes), it l ists over 300 things in the table of contents. No grand law was violated. It's VERY easily available - in regular and large print, hardback and leather editions. I got mine with a 25% discount and free shipping.


Nathan, if you want to buy a Bible that has 27-83 books it in, YOU CAN. No one, nothing, is keeping you from it. Buy one you think is right for you. It's legal. It's allowed. It's available and has been so for centuries. Simple. Easy.



.

 

[NathanH83]

As I stated above, the choice is compromised. Since now the majority of Protestants rely on purchasing bibles from the local super-market, if the "Apocrypha" were included in the standard non denominational bibles we would find about as much uproar as in the times of Reformers for the complete removal of them from the Bible.... which there was absolutely no uproar by protestants to demand lighter bibles.
Thus the argument of canon would hardly even matter since no doctrine from the OT has been established by Christians anyway, Purgatory was supposedly based on more books than just one book, but in any case they were twisted, my copy of the Catholic Catechism does not even reference any scripture, so what difference does that make? Jews have prayed to the dead since forever, its a Holy and Pious THOUGHT to pray to God for His Mercy on your decreased loved one, even Jesus wept!
I dont believe they are being temporarily punished and I find no evidence of such a place in the Bible, but IF there was such a place, praying for the dead is STILL a pious one, we all want to see our loved ones at the ressurection!

If the standard Bibles included the common majority of those considered by the churches as either Apocrypha or Deuterocanon or fully canon, then that is a better measuring rod to use than some bias bible society, and Christians would read them and know them just as they did long ago.

The thing is, though, the fact that the Apocryphal books talk about praying for the dead, that’s not the REAL reason Christians reject the Apocrypha.

The only REAL reason is because the Jews today reject it. If the Jews today accepted 2 Maccabees as holy scripture, then Protestant Christians would have no problem whatsoever with accepting it. And when it says praying for the dead, they’d find some way of explaining it away.

You see, it all comes down to: “We gotta believe whatever the Jews tell us.”

I believe that the Jews DID accept Maccabees originally. I’ve ALWAYS gotten the impression that Hebrews 11:35 was referencing something from Biblical history, but I just couldn’t figure out what. NOW I KNOW, THANK GOD!!!

 

[NathanH83]

73
7 for completeness
3 for the blessed Trinity.

73 is an interesting number

 

[NathanH83]

@NathanH83


1. Which Apocrypha?


2. There is no law anywhere that restricts printers, publishing houses or bookstores from making available Bibles with ANYTHING THEY WANT in them. The Bible is not typewritten. There are no laws anywhere about what must be included or excluded between the covers of such a tome. If you want a tome with Psalm 151 in it - IT'S AVAILABLE. If you want a tome with 4 Maccabees in it - IT'S AVAILABLE. If you want a tome that only has 27 NT books in it - IT'S AVAILABLE. And if you want to read The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, First Clement, the Letter of Barnabas, the Epistle to the Leodiceans those are all very easily available too. The very fact that you claim you've read some set of books you call "the Apocrypha" proves they are available.


3. My tome (published by the Lutheran Concordia Publishing House) has some 2800 pages between the covers (in 2 volumes), it l ists over 300 things in the table of contents. No grand law was violated. It's VERY easily available - in regular and large print, hardback and leather editions. I got mine with a 25% discount and free shipping.


Nathan, if you want to buy a Bible that has 27-83 books it in, YOU CAN. No one, nothing, is keeping you from it. Buy one you think is right for you. It's legal. It's allowed. It's available and has been so for centuries. Simple. Easy.



.

What you’re saying is not helpful, since most Christians are told not to buy a Bible that includes the Apocryphal books since they think it’s Catholic. Most Christian book stores don’t even contain Catholic Bibles. You gotta go to a Catholic book store or a secular book store in most cases for that.

There needs to be more than just the freedom to buy a Catholic Bible. There needs to be an acknowledgment among Protestant church leaders that the things our pastors are saying and teaching in our churches are not factually or historically true.

Like the idea that the Apocryphal books were “Never accepted as canon” prior to 1546. Really? I just read that on a website recently. Does that really sound honest to you? That makes it sound like ZERO Christians accepted the Apocryphal books into the canon until 1546. Is that really true? Is that factual? Is that what history really tells us?

We as Protestant Christians across America are being LIED TO and LED ASTRAY by LIES that are not FACTUALLY true nor HISTORICALLY true!

 

[Albion]

What you’re saying is not helpful, since most Christians are told not to buy a Bible that includes the Apocryphal books since they think it’s Catholic.

That almost never is the case.

The ante-nicene Christians did not segregate nor distinguish them apart from the rest of scripture.

They most certainly did not agree on the Apocryphal books being of the same authority and source as the 66 which were ultimately accepted as inspired writings.

 

[MoreCoffee]

73 is an interesting number

LXXIII
Vs
LXVI

Laying aside the humour

There isn't any good case to make for a 66 book bible until well after the Protestant revolt.

 

[Albion]

There needs to be more than just the freedom to buy a Catholic Bible. There needs to be an acknowledgment among Protestant church leaders that the things our pastors are saying and teaching in our churches are not factually or historically true.

Perhaps you are just familiar with oddball or poorly trained pastors who aren't at all representative of Protestant clergy.

I've attended a wide variety of Protestant churches in my day and never encountered even one pastor who made a point of saying what I read here was supposed to be standard advice from them.

Like the idea that the Apocryphal books were “Never accepted as canon” prior to 1546. Really? I just read that on a website recently. Does that really sound honest to you?

That is the fact, yes.

 

[Albion]

The Rev. Milo H. Gates, of Trinity Church

(Prot.), of New York City, accuses the Bible societies of circulating mutilated copies of the Holy Scriptures. The New York Sun, of December 6, Inst, quotes him as saying:

"The time has come when all real Protestants should demand from the Bible societies the whole Bible.

All you have is one pastor, most likely an Episcopalian who was extolled in a Roman Catholic publication (get it?), who thought that the Apocrypha should be included in Bible publications.

That doesn't verify even one of the false claims that have been made here about these books always previously having been considered part of the canon on the same level as the OT and NT. What's more, I don't have any reason to expect any evidence coming forth now to counter what I've just pointed out.

 

[NathanH83]

That almost never is the case.


They most certainly did not agree on the Apocryphal books being of the same authority and source as the 66 which were ultimately accepted as inspired writings.

Who’s “THEY”?

Be specific!!!!

Are you saying the church leaders of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage didn’t include the Apocryphal books within the list of divine canonical scriptures? Because they most certainly DID! Read it! Or are you talking about someone else?

Who are you talking about? Who’s “THEY”?????

 

[NathanH83]

LXXIII
Vs
LXVI

Laying aside the humour

There isn't any good case to make for a 66 book bible until well after the Protestant revolt.

Have you seen that clip from Big Bang Theory about the number 73?

 

[NathanH83]

Perhaps you are just familiar with oddball or poorly trained pastors who aren't at all representative of Protestant clergy.

I've attended a wide variety of Protestant churches in my day and never encountered even one pastor who made a point of saying what I read here was supposed to be standard advice from them.

That is the fact, yes.

You’re saying that ZERO Christians prior to 1546 accepted the Apocryphal books as divine canonical scripture?

If that’s what you think, then you are mistaken. What you believe is FACTUALLY and HISTORICALLY inaccurate.

Do a simple internet search of the church councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. They declared these books to be divine canonical scripture. That was in the 380’s and 390’s (late 4th century).

Granted, those were just regional councils. But for you to say that ZERO Christians accepted those books as scripture prior to Trent in 1546, sorry, but that is just plain wrong, and can be disproven by simply READING CHURCH HISTORY, which you apparently haven’t done a lot of.

Sorry, you are MISTAKEN.